Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #869871 > unrolled thread

Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-17 10:50 -0800
    Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD worm food <wormfood@compostpunk.com> - 2023-02-18 14:40 -0500
      Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-18 12:02 -0800
        Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-18 14:29 -0600
      Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-02-19 12:22 -0800

#869871 — Re: THE RIEMANN CURVATURE OF GOD

worm food wrote:
> 
> On 2/15/2023 5:40 AM, George Hammond wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, worm food wrote:
> >> [worm food] wrote:
> >> You, and he, (Hans Geesink) and others, have
> >> clearly "seen something" and you are utilizing
> >> what you consider the best and most relevant
> >> known language to describe that "something".
> >> -wf
> > .
> >   (hmm... Notice the perfect typographical
> > "justification" of that paragraph... g.e.h.)
> > .
> > [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> > HISTORIC discoveries can be
> > described in a few words.
> > Hammond's Scientific Proof of God
> > is a HISTORIC discovery.
> > .
> > ROUTINE scientific research discoveries
> > requires dozens of pages. of explanation.
> > Hans Geesink's QM/EM/BIO discoveries
> > require voluminous description.
> > .
> > The SPOG can be understood by a High
> > School student – assuming that he:
> >   WANTS TO UNDERSTAND IT !
> > .
> > Frankly, I'm more interested in YOUR
> > opinion of the SPOG then I am in
> > Hans Geesink's opinion.
> > .
> > That is, assuming you are actually
> > CURIOUS as to what "God" actually is!
> > BECAUSE if you are actually interested
> > in what God is – that would make you
> > the 2nd most interested person in the
> > world; – after ME !
> > .
> > George
> 
> George,
> I cannot comment on the mathematical accuracy of your theory, nor on the
> scientific rigor. I can only comment that I believe you are earnest.
> -wf


yeahhh, when you say the word "earnest"...you make it sound like an
insult! (which is your M.O.)







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#869931

On 2/17/2023 1:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> worm food wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/2023 5:40 AM, George Hammond wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, worm food wrote:
>>>> [worm food] wrote:
>>>> You, and he, (Hans Geesink) and others, have
>>>> clearly "seen something" and you are utilizing
>>>> what you consider the best and most relevant
>>>> known language to describe that "something".
>>>> -wf
>>> .
>>>    (hmm... Notice the perfect typographical
>>> "justification" of that paragraph... g.e.h.)
>>> .
>>> [George E Hammond MS Physics]
>>> HISTORIC discoveries can be
>>> described in a few words.
>>> Hammond's Scientific Proof of God
>>> is a HISTORIC discovery.
>>> .
>>> ROUTINE scientific research discoveries
>>> requires dozens of pages. of explanation.
>>> Hans Geesink's QM/EM/BIO discoveries
>>> require voluminous description.
>>> .
>>> The SPOG can be understood by a High
>>> School student – assuming that he:
>>>    WANTS TO UNDERSTAND IT !
>>> .
>>> Frankly, I'm more interested in YOUR
>>> opinion of the SPOG then I am in
>>> Hans Geesink's opinion.
>>> .
>>> That is, assuming you are actually
>>> CURIOUS as to what "God" actually is!
>>> BECAUSE if you are actually interested
>>> in what God is – that would make you
>>> the 2nd most interested person in the
>>> world; – after ME !
>>> .
>>> George
>>
>> George,
>> I cannot comment on the mathematical accuracy of your theory, nor on the
>> scientific rigor. I can only comment that I believe you are earnest.
>> -wf
> 
> 
> yeahhh, when you say the word "earnest"...you make it sound like an
> insult! (which is your M.O.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Text-based communication media are particularly interesting because, in 
the absence of context (and sometimes in spite of it), one can impose 
one's own psychoemotional context onto the words.

But, I can see what you mean about my communication style. Perhaps I 
should retrain the algorithm.

Thanks for the tip, Loki.

Anyway, you're both correct. To my thinking, the concept of "god" cannot 
be understood without experiencing a change in "magnification". It's 
akin to the idea that causality actually doesn't break down at any 
level, despite the protestations of several generations of scientists. 
Our ignorance of the cause of a phenomenon is simply that: ignorance. 
Objectivism tends to break down in the face of this realization, due not 
least in part to our seemingly ingrained reductionist tendencies. In 
short, not one of us knows anything about anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#869932

worm food wrote:
> 
> On 2/17/2023 1:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > worm food wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/15/2023 5:40 AM, George Hammond wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 11:55:21 AM UTC-5, worm food wrote:
> >>>> [worm food] wrote:
> >>>> You, and he, (Hans Geesink) and others, have
> >>>> clearly "seen something" and you are utilizing
> >>>> what you consider the best and most relevant
> >>>> known language to describe that "something".
> >>>> -wf
> >>> .
> >>>    (hmm... Notice the perfect typographical
> >>> "justification" of that paragraph... g.e.h.)
> >>> .
> >>> [George E Hammond MS Physics]
> >>> HISTORIC discoveries can be
> >>> described in a few words.
> >>> Hammond's Scientific Proof of God
> >>> is a HISTORIC discovery.
> >>> .
> >>> ROUTINE scientific research discoveries
> >>> requires dozens of pages. of explanation.
> >>> Hans Geesink's QM/EM/BIO discoveries
> >>> require voluminous description.
> >>> .
> >>> The SPOG can be understood by a High
> >>> School student – assuming that he:
> >>>    WANTS TO UNDERSTAND IT !
> >>> .
> >>> Frankly, I'm more interested in YOUR
> >>> opinion of the SPOG then I am in
> >>> Hans Geesink's opinion.
> >>> .
> >>> That is, assuming you are actually
> >>> CURIOUS as to what "God" actually is!
> >>> BECAUSE if you are actually interested
> >>> in what God is – that would make you
> >>> the 2nd most interested person in the
> >>> world; – after ME !
> >>> .
> >>> George
> >>
> >> George,
> >> I cannot comment on the mathematical accuracy of your theory, nor on the
> >> scientific rigor. I can only comment that I believe you are earnest.
> >> -wf
> >
> >
> > yeahhh, when you say the word "earnest"...you make it sound like an
> > insult! (which is your M.O.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Text-based communication media are particularly interesting because, in
> the absence of context (and sometimes in spite of it), one can impose
> one's own psychoemotional context onto the words.


"psychoemotional"???? is dat a compliment? or just your ...M.O.?


> 
> But, I can see what you mean about my communication style. Perhaps I
> should retrain the algorithm.
> 
> Thanks for the tip, Loki.
> 
> Anyway, you're both correct. To my thinking, the concept of "god" cannot
> be understood without experiencing a change in "magnification". It's
> akin to the idea that causality actually doesn't break down at any
> level, despite the protestations of several generations of scientists.
> Our ignorance of the cause of a phenomenon is simply that: ignorance.
> Objectivism tends to break down in the face of this realization, due not
> least in part to our seemingly ingrained reductionist tendencies. In
> short, not one of us knows anything about anything.



I know everthing about everything, go ahead..ask me any question
on...Relativity.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#869939

On 2/18/2023 2:02 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

[...]

> I know everthing about everything, [...]
You think you know at least as much as or perhaps more than
Arindam Banerjee? That begs the question which of you two
has more human failings?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#870027

George Hammond wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, worm food wrote:
> >
> > [WORM FOOD] wrote:
> > To my thinking, the concept of "god"
> > cannot be understood without experiencing
> >  a change in "magnification".
> >
> [GEORGE HAMMOND MS Physics] wrote:
> OK-- "Worm Food" --- Go to the Head of the Class !
> .
> You're EXACTLY CORRECT except that God is a
> .
> 1-- A magnification of the SIZE of the World
> .............................AND
> 2-- A magnification of the SPEED of the World
> .
> Everything you look at (including notably People)
> APPEARS to be
> about 20% LARGER and 20% FASTER than they
> ACTUALLY ARE !!
> .
> This is the fundamental phenomenon of "GOD" !
> .
> And YOU are the first person I've ever run into who
> RECOGNIZES it  (besides me of course, who has
> actually succeeded in scientifically proving it!)!
> .
> George


What scientifically METHOD did you use to proving it????


i see no methods.






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web